Saturday, April 8, 2017

In launching a missile attack against Syria President Trump announced
that America was back in the game. Sighs of relief were heard around the world,
but most especially from the Middle Eastern nations that had been diminished by
the Obama administration. The world had been descending into chaos because the Obama administration had produced a leadership vacuum. Especially in the Middle East.

Trump’s predecessor had systematically disfavored Sunni
Arabs and Israel in order to favor the growing influence of Iran and other
members of the axis of evil. These nations, along with many of America’s
traditional European allies cheered the show of decisive action on the part of
an American president. One needed but to read the faces of the Sunni leaders
who have recently met with Trump in the White House. Idem for the expression of
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The attack was intended to make a statement. First, it
declared that the Obama era in foreign policy was over. And surely that was a
good thing. See Jeffrey Goldberg's comments in The Atlantic.

Many Democrats cheered the Trump action, but some few
remaining Obamaphiles were still trying to defend their Saviour. Last night,
former State Department spokesperson Marie Harf, now a commentator on Fox News,
suggested that Obama was not at fault for not acting on his Syrian red line.
The fault lay with a Congress that did not authorize him to do so. This leads
one to observe that if Harf wants to have a career in broadcast journalism she
needs to get over thinking like a State Department flack.

In January Susan Rice declared that the Obama administration
was proud of having rid Syria of all chemical weapons. Now we know that the claim
was bogus. And it was bogus before last week’s attack. Those who care about
facts knew it. Those who were spinning as fast as they could did not. As for
the excuse, namely that Obama could not enforce the red line that he had so
ominously laid down because Congress would not let him, the Trump action showed
that a president does not need Congressional approval to launch military
strikes.

In fairness, many former members of the Obama administration
were thrilled by the Trump action. In particular, Anne-Marie Slaughter cheered
the attack.

She tweeted:

Donald
Trump has done the right thing on Syria. Finally!! After years of useless
handwringing in the face of hideous atrocities.

Since Slaughter was director of policy planning in the State
Department, her reaction suggests that the question was vigorously debated in
the Obama administration and that the cowardly response was imposed by the
president himself.

The Trump action was clear and decisive. It showed, once
again that the Obama foreign policy was based on weakness and fecklessness, on
empty words. Everyone ought to know that Barack Obama bears the greatest responsibility
for the horrors that have befallen Syria. The Obamaphile rationalizations are now
sounding especially empty.

And yet, the Trump administration has been criticized for
its seemingly contradictory statements. It was not very long ago that Secretary
of State Rex Tillerson announced that Bashar Assad’s fate should be left to the
Syrian people. But then, after the chemical weapons attack, the policy shifted
to regime change.

And how can one connect the Trump administration’s efforts
to reach out to Vladimir Putin to its willingness to attack a Russian proxy
like Assad. People who were criticizing Trump for his efforts to get
along with Vladimir Putin are now having second thoughts.

Perhaps this is not as complicated as it seems. The Trump
approach toward Russia and even Syria began with an opening gambit. The new
president offered an open hand of friendship, an olive branch to a combatant.
In principle, this gesture invites an opponent into a negotiation that can put
an end to conflict. It is not just a diplomatic nicety. It is an opening move
in a game, one that is designed to set off a movement toward a peace
settlement.

Assad did not respond with a reciprocal gesture. He
responded by launching a chemical weapons attack on his own citizens. Given that
it had offered a gesture of conciliation the Trump administration was
morally justified in responding with a flurry of Tomahawk missiles. If Tillerson
had not made his initial gesture, the response would have lacked a defining
moral justification.

Some people, especially Sen. Marco Rubio, suggested that the
Tillerson gambit opened the door to Assad, by giving him the green light. Of
course, Rubio is grandstanding—for a change—and pretending to be the toughest
guy on the block. It only makes sense for Assad to respond to a peace offering
with an act of war if he thinks that he can win the war. The side that thinks it is
winning a war does not sue for peace. And it does not accept a peace offering.

Another interpretation, more cogent than the last, is that
Assad, and through Assad, Putin, was testing the fortitude of the Trump
administration. Surely, it makes sense.

Trump has blustered about how tough he is, but he has never
displayed toughness on the world stage. Largely because he has never been
involved on the world stage. Besides, his approval ratings have been in free
fall and the nation is sharply divided over his presidency. Did Assad, or
Putin, see a chance to exploit vulnerability? To test him? Surely, it’s possible. Did Assad,
or Putin, want to see whether Trump’s conciliatory attitude bespoke strength or
weakness? Perhaps. After all, the nation that elected Donald Trump also elected
his pusillanimous predecessor.

Walter Russell Mead offered a cogent version of this theory
in the Wall Street Journal this morning.

In his words:

This
must have looked like a good week to challenge Washington. The Trump
administration is beset by critics. Most senior national-security posts remain
unfilled. The White House is torn by infighting. The Republican Party is
divided by the bitter primary campaign and its recent health-care fiasco.

President
Trump concluded, correctly, that failing to respond effectively to Mr. Assad’s
challenge would invite more probes and more tests. He moved quickly and
decisively against the provocation, demonstrating that the days of strategic
dithering are gone.

For an alternative theory, Stephen Bryen suggests that Assad
wanted to forestall a peace process that would limit his authority:

The
more likely truth is that Assad was deeply afraid that the US policy shift was
part of a secret deal with the Russians, one that he had to head off.

Bryen, a man of considerable experience in these areas,
suggests that Assad’s use of nerve gas was a slap in Putin’s face. For my part
I find this to be slightly less than plausible. W1hy would Assad risk
everything by insulting his primary benefactor and defender? Did he think that
Putin would take a grievous insult lying down?

Some commentators-- like Frank Bruni-- have also pointed out that Trump’s attack
on Syria pushed a large number of unflattering and embarrassing stories out of
the press. Trump’s presidency had been taking fire from many sides. Now, he had
a chance to unite the nation and burnish his image. Yet, while it is true that
the attack improved the president’s image, showing him to be decisive and in
command, this does not necessarily mean that he did it in order to appear to be
decisive and in command.

The political calculus makes some sense, but one needs to
notice that the people in charge, Mattis and McMaster have never been in the
business of image management. Would they have proposed a military action in
order to make the president look good? They are sophisticated military
strategists… such people do not drop bombs without having any sense of the
potential real world consequences. Without, that is, gaming out the possible ourcomes.

The attack on Syria was measured and decisive. It showed
that America was back in the game. After the Obama administration had walked
away from the table, it was necessary for the new leader to take command.

Gerald Seib of the Wall Street Journal provides an excellent
analysis of the consequences. By analysis here, I mean that Seib examines the state of the game.
The game in question is foreign policy.

Seib offers these points:

For
starters, the action comes precisely as the new president is being tested by
North Korea and its erratic leader, Kim Jong Un. In fact, nobody has challenged
Mr. Trump more directly; the North Korean’s welcome note to Mr. Trump has been
a series of missile tests seemingly designed to show that his quest to develop
the ability to deliver a nuclear warhead to Seoul, Tokyo or Los Angeles will
continue unabated.

And, also, the action sent a message to China:

That
message likely also reached the man Mr. Trump happened to be meeting Friday,
Chinese President Xi Jinping. The Chinese have more influence over North
Korea than anyone, and they seem perpetually torn over how to use that
influence….

If
Chinese leaders are convinced that the American administration is prepared to
take dramatic action to stop North Korea’s nuclear program, their incentive to
move on their own to prevent such a sequence of events goes up. Perhaps that is
how Mr. Xi will read his options after Mr. Trump demonstrated a willingness to
act in Syria.

As for Russia, Seib offers this analysis:

For
Russia, the Syria move may represent a rude discovery that the new American
president won’t be the pliant partner that the Kremlin had hoped for. The
biggest change in Syria since President Barack Obama declined to take a similar
military step there was a dramatic escalation in Russia’s presence on behalf of
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The
Russians and their Syrian patrons may have thought that presence would shield
Mr. Assad from American hostilities. And they may have thought that doubly true
after Mr. Trump, who campaigned on a platform of improving relations with
Russia and skepticism about involvement in more Middle Eastern fights, took
office.

Seib concludes by noting the message that is being sent to
Iran:

Finally,
Iran, Syria’s other big international enabler, has to think anew about the
potential costs of its own involvement in Syria—as well as the consequences it
might face if it breaks out of the deal it struck to curb its nuclear
activities.

All
these actors are capable of making big trouble for Mr. Trump if they feel
threatened, but they also might choose to moderate their behavior if they think
the new president isn’t withdrawing from the world stage.

Spot on. The Syria move also leads our enemies to check their plans, actions and provocations. It will check some encroachments, and slow others. Assad is not happy. Putin is not happy. Iran is not happy. The strike must've made for interesting conversation during Trump and Xi's cocktail hour. Net result for USA: No large-scale ground intervention, plenty of collateral damage to Assad's military assets, and it puts the world on notice. The best part: Trump gave the Russians 30 minutes notice.

As an aside, Iran is still coming up in my conversations with friends around Middle East foreign policy. Not one of us understands the rationale for Obama's cozy ties with the lunatic theocrats. It still makes no sense. What did we get for all that "diplomacy?" The Obamatrons fought hard for their approach on Iran. Weird.

So basically Trump agrees with what Clinton probably would have done and Obama would not have done.

Congratuations! America is back. Can we add a "Mission accomplished" banner now?

I wonder if Clinton would have warned Putin before the attack? I guess if the point is to have a symbolic attack that makes people think you're doing something, while you actually want to have no real change, this is how you act.

Does anyone else see a major U.S. Military battle defeat, of the Pearl Harbor type, in our imminent future? You have to think a country with our hubris and arrogance is just asking for something.

OTOH, perhaps it really will be of the Pearl Harbor type, i.e. an event we could have prevented, but chose to allow happen, because it would spur the American People to unite behind a new great military campaign of some sort.

Maybe Martin Armstrong is right - The elite loves a good war to destract the people from their own corruption, and Trump has won the golden ticket, and he gets to be their puppet too. Hillary would have done fine, but now we know all it takes is a few random pictures of dead children is enough for Trump to do their bidding just as well as she would have.

One of the questions that has bothered me is, "Why do we believe that the best way to deal with people like Assad is to create a lot of refugees so they can be displaced from their own country where they would rather reside?" Always seemed to me as a way for people to feel good about themselves at the expense of the people they make into refugees and to ignore the problems that are behind most of the ills we run away from.

Dennis, What are you saying no to? That Clinton wouldn't have authorized military action, same as Trump? Or is the difference that Trump is against refugees coming here, because many or most refugees would prefer their own country, if it didn't have Assad in power?

And to be fair to Obama, his red line did lead to a diplomatic solution, where Russia as Syria's ally, intervened and got Assad to agree to destroy all his chemical weapons. So such agreements are clearly not perfect, but it got rid of more chemical weapons than bombing possibly can.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/10/syria-chemical-weapons-convention_n_3901417.html

Perhaps this can become a new "bad-cop, good-cop" routine where Russia can say "Assad, that Trump guy is crazy, changing on a dime just because of some dead children photos. You'd better knock off this bad behavior or we're not going to be able to protect you any longer."

Anyway, in this regard, I don't have a problem with symbolic demonstrative actions, even if Russia did warn Syria about the attack.

The whole problem is what comes next and I don't see the U.S. in the driver seat on anything here. There's bad people on all sides of the fight, and it's the sort of conflict you almost don't want anyone to win, except for the fact you have millions of refugees as a consequence.

In the end maybe Russia is right, having a brutal leader like Assad in power is better than terminal civil war, so we have to let him brutalize his own people until all resistance disappears, and then make him promise to be slightly less brutal. And then all the refugees can go home and live ordinary lives, knowing if they do or say the wrong thing, they or their family might disappear, but at least the hot civil war will be gone.

I don't suppose that's the sort of ending the refugees want, but it might be all we have, unless Russia gets impatient with their little buddy.

If you cannot figure out what I am saying NO to then you really need to go back and re-read your comments and the assumptions and conclusions you make a leap to justify ideas that only exists in your mind and the fact that Trump resides there. Even your response literally oozes with condescension and TDS. Huffington Post, Vox, et al are not unbiased sources. It saddens me how much you are owned.